Samsung Must Pay Apple $1bn

[Em Dott]

LOL

Good sh*t.

[Swiftie]

Bout f*ckin time.

As for Judge Koh, she just needs some good d*ck from an Android owner to prevent this from ever happening again. /s

[Creed Diskenth]

LOL

Good sh*t.

Bout f*ckin time.

[Kurtis]

Samsung Display has cut all ties with Apple

[Kurtis]

USPTO has 'tentatively' invalidated Apple's key rubber-banding patent

The US Patent and Trademark Office may have just thrown a wrench into Apple's recent courtroom triumph over Samsung by invalidating one of the patents at the heart of the victory: rubber-banding. We noted at the time that Apple hit a "home run" with that particular IP, as jurors declared that all 21 disputed Samsung devices infringed it, no doubt resulting in a large part of the $1 billion (and counting) owed by the Korean maker. "Claim 19" of patent 7469381, which covers that feature, was invalidated by the USPTO on two counts, both of which were cases of prior art that allegedly existed before Cupertino claimed them. Either one could be enough reason to throw out that part of the patent, according to FOSS Patents, provided that the USPTO's ruling stands up. Either way, Samsung has already brought the new information to Judge Koh's attention -- which might bring about some new action very soon.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/foss-uspto-invalidates-apple-rubber-banding/

[gattsu]

its all falling apart

[dub]

Samsung Display has cut all ties with Apple

that's nothing to do with Samsung the company though, they're separate - it was due to Apple not ordering enough to warrant the discount they were getting

[dub]

(Reuters) - A Dutch court ruled on Wednesday that Samsung Electronics does not infringe an Apple Inc patent by using certain multi-touch techniques on some of the Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablet computers.

http://www.reuters.c...E89N0ER20121024

[Kurtis]

BREAKING: Apple wins preliminary ruling in U.S. International Trade Commission case against Samsung. The judge ruled Samsung violated four of Apple's patents, including one for the design of the iPhone and one for the touch-screen technology co-invented by Steve Jobs.

from Bloomberg

[MARVELL]

f*ck OFF WITH THE DUTCH RULINGS, SWEDISH RULINGS, FRENCH AND US RULINGS AGAINST AND FOR THE SAME PATENTS

DO A ONE SIZE FITS ALL RULING

AND f*ck APPLE

[Skola]

some weak patents that probably shouldnt have been given in the first place

a retangle with rounded corners

GTFO

[Kurtis]

http://www.apple.com/uk/

right at the bottom next to choose your country

[dub]

Samsung still top of market, Apple second http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/idc-third-quarter-figures

[Kurtis]

Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement

Apple has 48 hours to re-write a statement on its website relating to its design rights dispute with Samsung, UK judges have ruled.

Apple was forced on 18 October to publish a message making it clear that Samsung had not infringed the iPad's registered design.

However Samsung complained the statement Apple had posted did not comply with the court order.

Judges agreed and have told Apple it must be removed within 24 hours.

A new, compliant version must then be posted.

Michael Beloff QC, representing Apple, told judges that the company had thought that it had complied with the court order.

"It's not designed to punish," he said.

"It's not designed to make us grovel. The only purpose must be to dispel commercial uncertainty."

He asked that the company be given 14 days to post the replacement - but the request was firmly denied.

Lord Justice Longmore told Mr Beloff: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."

One of the other judges, Sir Robin Jacob, added: "I would like to see the head of Apple [Tim Cook] make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company."

Apple told the BBC it did not want to comment further.

'Horse's mouth'

Samsung complained that the notice posted by Apple was "inaccurate and misleading" because it added comments about other rulings in Germany and the US that had gone in the iPad-maker's favour.

"This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue," a Samsung lawyer said in a written statement to judges.

"It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts."

The UK's ruling applies to the whole of the EU.

The court order is the latest twist in an ongoing legal saga involving the two companies.

Apple brought the case to the UK courts, alleging that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10 had infringed the design of its iPad.

But in July, Judge Colin Birss disagreed on the grounds that Samsung's product was not as "cool".

His ruling meant that Apple was denied the opportunity to impose a sales ban on Samsung's products.

Apple was unsuccessful in appealing the ruling, and was ordered to place a notice on its website, newspapers and magazines explaining that Samsung had not infringed its designs.

The intention, judges said, was not to make Apple "grovel", but to remove "commercial uncertainty" surrounding Samsung's products.

"A consumer might well think: 'I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported'," Sir Robin said.

"Apple itself must (having created the confusion) make the position clear: that it acknowledges that the court has decided that that these Samsung products do not infringe its registered design.

"The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20165664

[Swiftie]

14 days to change a couple of lines on page.. LMAO....

[Kurtis]

Apple v Google: US judge dismisses patent lawsuit

A US judge has dismissed Apple's case in which it alleged that Google's Motorola unit was seeking excessive royalty payments for patents.

Motorola has sought 2.25% of the price of Apple products that use some of its patents, which Apple said was too high.

Last week, Motorola asked the court to set a price but Apple said it would not pay more than $1 (£0.60) per device.

Firms that own industry-essential patents are expected to offer them under fair licensing terms.

Motorola said it was still open to negotiations with Apple and was interested in reaching an agreement.

"Motorola has long offered licensing to our extensive patent portfolio at a reasonable and non-discriminatory rate in line with industry standards," the firm said in its statement.

'Subjectivity and assumption'

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

It is very tough to determine what a fair price is of any patent held by a firm”

Andrew Milroy Frost & Sullivan

Google finalised its purchase of Motorola Mobility earlier this year for $12.5bn (£7.9bn).

The deal was Google's biggest acquisition ever and gave it access to more than 17,000 of Motorola's valuable patents.

While the firm is required to offer industry-essential patents at terms that are "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" or Frand for short, analysts said it was difficult to determine what a reasonable royalty was.

"It is very tough to determine what a fair price is of any patent held by a firm," Andrew Milroy of Frost & Sullivan told the BBC.

"There are complex financial models that are used to evaluate it - but there is a lot of subjectivity and assumption that goes into those.

"It can hardly be described as a science."

Meanwhile, some analysts said the dismissal of the case was a major setback for Apple as it was likely to give Motorola an upper hand in negotiations.

"This puts Apple back into the position it was before," said Lea Shaver, an intellectual property professor at Indiana University School of Law,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20216101

Apple need to hire some new lawyers

[Kurtis]

Judge to review whether foreman in Apple v. Samsung hid info

A federal court will look into whether the jury foreman in Apple v. Samsung "concealed information" during jury selection.

Federal District Judge Lucy Koh will "consider the questions" of whether the jury foreman in Apple v. Samsung "concealed information" during the jury selection process and whether there was any misconduct.

Koh said she will look into the matter during a December 6 hearing. As part of her inquiry, Koh said she will require Apple to disclose what information the company's lawyers knew about the jury foreman.

Samsung is trying to get the $1 billion patent judgment that a jury awarded Apple in August thrown out. Apple filed suit against Samsung last year claiming the South Korea-based company had ripped off some of the technology and designs that went into the iPad and iPhone. Samsung countersued, alleging Apple violated some of its patents.

After the verdict, Samsung alleged that it didn't receive a fair trial as a result of juror misconduct.

Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan didn't disclose during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate, his former employer. Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Samsung maintains Hogan should have informed the court about the case.

From Koh's order:

On October 30, 2012, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple's discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreperson. On November 2, 2012, Apple filed an opposition. At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct. An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson.

Typically, it's hard to overturn a jury decision for alleged misconduct, say legal experts. The reason for that is U.S. law doesn't want lawyers trying to peek into the jury room.

In September, Brian Love, a law professor at Santa Clara University who's followed the trial closely said he thought it would be difficult for Samsung to get the decision thrown out based on jury misconduct. "You're looking for material," Love said, "or something else coming in that wasn't introduced at trial, a juror reading reports about the case and they're being influenced by outside forces."

That wasn't the case with Hogan. During voir dire, Hogan did disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner when the judge asked him if he had ever been involved in litigation.

Hogan has noted, in response to Samsung's allegations, that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57547490-37/judge-to-review-whether-foreman-in-apple-v-samsung-hid-info/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

[Kurtis]

UK court says Apple notice was 'false and misleading,' orders full repayment of Samsung's legal costs

Nothing truly says "I'm sorry" like a large sum of cash, and Apple will have to open up its wallet to Samsung thanks to "false and misleading" information it published in a court-ordered statement. A UK high court ordered Cupertino to post an apology on its British website stating that the Galaxy Tab didn't copy the iPad, which it did. However, according to a new judgement by the the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, it also added statements "calculated to produce confusion," like references to other unrelated judgements. Though Apple issued a second apology, the court is taking the unusual step of forcing it to pay all of Samsung's legal fees for the entire case on an "indemnity basis" -- in other words, to compensate the Korean maker for losses suffered due to the original statement. If you'd like to parse the legalese for yourself, hit the source.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/11/uk-court-says-apple-notice-was-false-and-misleading-orders-fu/

this court is just NOT having a bar

[Kuffir]

apple r getting drapsed

[Zizouz]

Samsung bumps up the price of Apple’s processors by 20%, Apple can’t say no

by Stefan Constantinescu on Nov 12, 2012

• Tweet
  
• 
  

Every iPhone or iPad or iPod touch that you see in the wild, they all have processors inside that were manufactured by Samsung. Samsung, knowing that Apple simply can’t call another company and ask them to make their chips, raised the prices of said chips by 20% according toMarketWatch. There’s not much Apple can do, and the report confirms that, saying Apple accepted the price bump. It also goes on to say that Samsung made roughly 130 million processors for Apple in 2011. This year that number is expected to surpass 200 million. And the contract that Apple and Samsung have, it doesn’t expire until 2014.

So let’s break this news item down. Why did Samsung bump up the prices of their chips? To screw Apple, obviously, but more importantly to make sure that Samsung can keep a greater share of what their factories spit out. The fewer processors Samsung makes for Apple, the more they can make for themselves. What’s Apple going to do? There have been rumors floating around the internet for months that Apple is going to transition to using another fab, TSMC, for their chips. We fully believe the rumor to be true, now it’s just a question of when. TheMarketWatch piece says the contract between Apple and Samsung expires in 2014, so there’s a strong chance you’re going to see some Apple devices with TSMC chips inside hit the market within 24 months.

What impact, if any, does this have on the Android ecosystem? Like we said earlier, the fewer components Samsung supplies to Apple, the more they get to keep for themselves. Samsung is now the number one handset maker in terms of volume. They’d like to keep that title, and that means throwing one of their biggest customers under the bus.

Do we feel any sympathy towards Apple? Not in the slightest.

apple r getting drapsed

[Flojo]

Apple are idiots, how are you gonna do your best to tear down a business that is the supplier of key components for your most popular products?

[dub]

for Jobs I think it was on principle, he believed people shouldn't have gotten away with "copying" his products without license/permission

[Kurtis]

you them ones where you try bully someone in the playground then everyone just turns on you and rushes you

yeah

[Flojo]

for Jobs I think it was on principle, he believed people shouldn't have gotten away with "copying" his products without license/permission

He stole his whole steez from Dieter Rams, he had a cheek.

They're gonna do themselves more harm than good with this strategy.

[Yoshie]

Jobs was very open about copying others' ideas. Cant be assed to find that quote